It is good to know that at least Mr. Malone subscribes to common sense weekly.
Though, I have wondered for years, why not give pornographic and other adult oriented websites, say for gambling thier own web extension. Perhaps .xxx, or .adt, or something of that nature, so its easy as pie to just configure a browser to block those specific extensions.
I am anti censorship, but at the same time, I think it should be extremely easy to protect my kid when she is online.
There has to be a solid middle ground between full out censorship, and protecting our kids. It obviously starts at home. As far as governments role, I am sure there are some creative solution that is better than government sanctioned censorship. Perhaps work with the internet adult entertainment industry to forge some better filtering techniques to protect kids from seeing the content.
I personally think re assigning them to a specific web extension might be a good place to start. Its an easy and transparent way to never dial up that site if you don't want to see it, but at the same time your not suggesting they make any changes to thier content.
Did you know in the .com extension, that Dicks does not take you to the sporting goods website, or whitehouse takes you to an adult web portal. Its deceptive, and frankly wrong, I think a good way to sort it all out is to say, okay guys, you run a certain type of business, and it belongs in the .xxx (or whatever) extensions webspace. Don't want to see porno today? Simple, just block that extension in your browser configuration, done, see how easy that was?
I can't imagine I am the first guy who has ever thought of this, so I am willing to bet the adult film and gambling industry has been fighting it every step of the way. They want to fit into mainstream business space, and I don't deny them the right to profit from whatever legal activity they desire, but at the same time, we should demand they have a responsibility to help us protect our kids as easily as possible.
Not much different than the warning on the pack of cigarettes. Does it eliminate it as a legal business interest, no. Is the public better informed though, sure. I could see a simple web extension change doing the same thing for the adult website industry, they stay in business, but they operate in a different corporate space. I think its a fair compromise.
The problem with the .xxx domain is that it's the internet equivalent of first amendment right infringement, and it would only apply to domains contained in the US. Obviously pornographic material has the right to exist like any other legal media, and there's no accounting for what goes on outside of our country.
But if they are still permitted to promote and distribute the content, is it an infringement of thier first amendment rights? I don't think so, I just think it puts it in a place thats easily noticed. Putting an R rating on a movie poster is not censorship, its just a way to educate the viewer prior to entry. I could see it working the same for webspace, having a particular extension could be akin to having a certain rating applied to the content, its just a way of being open, and honest up front about the content, it in no way censors it.
You raise a very good point about it being the WORLD wide web. That's the trick, you can only govern it so far if you want it to maintain as the worlds open communication portal, which I think we all want to see remain as open as possible. The exchange of ideas and values across cultures is so valuable, to govern it in a limiting way would be very destructive.
I think most world cultures would agree that protecting children should be a staple of any good reasonable society. Any society that endorses censorship to do so (China for example), is going to be disinterested on how the rest of the world comes together on a solution because ultimately they have applied thier own form of exclusion, which is a shame.
Thats an extreme example of what we would rather not become through government intervention. I like to be an optimist, I see it as an opportunity for members of the adult entertainment and gambling interests to come together with government representation to thwart censorship, and perhaps offer some compromise to show that they do share in the common interest to protect our children.
Perhaps if a few of the right people come forward, work together with the government to promote better filtering standards, perhaps the government would back off of the extreme solution, censorship.
Censorship is such a slipery slope, as Mr. Malone points out, once you start, where do you draw the line? Whats "unacceptable".
We obviously don't want that for any free society. Lets hope the two sides can establish a reasonable dialogue to improve each sides position without resorting to outright censorship.
Thrax
🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
Comments
Though, I have wondered for years, why not give pornographic and other adult oriented websites, say for gambling thier own web extension. Perhaps .xxx, or .adt, or something of that nature, so its easy as pie to just configure a browser to block those specific extensions.
I am anti censorship, but at the same time, I think it should be extremely easy to protect my kid when she is online.
There has to be a solid middle ground between full out censorship, and protecting our kids. It obviously starts at home. As far as governments role, I am sure there are some creative solution that is better than government sanctioned censorship. Perhaps work with the internet adult entertainment industry to forge some better filtering techniques to protect kids from seeing the content.
I personally think re assigning them to a specific web extension might be a good place to start. Its an easy and transparent way to never dial up that site if you don't want to see it, but at the same time your not suggesting they make any changes to thier content.
Did you know in the .com extension, that Dicks does not take you to the sporting goods website, or whitehouse takes you to an adult web portal. Its deceptive, and frankly wrong, I think a good way to sort it all out is to say, okay guys, you run a certain type of business, and it belongs in the .xxx (or whatever) extensions webspace. Don't want to see porno today? Simple, just block that extension in your browser configuration, done, see how easy that was?
I can't imagine I am the first guy who has ever thought of this, so I am willing to bet the adult film and gambling industry has been fighting it every step of the way. They want to fit into mainstream business space, and I don't deny them the right to profit from whatever legal activity they desire, but at the same time, we should demand they have a responsibility to help us protect our kids as easily as possible.
Not much different than the warning on the pack of cigarettes. Does it eliminate it as a legal business interest, no. Is the public better informed though, sure. I could see a simple web extension change doing the same thing for the adult website industry, they stay in business, but they operate in a different corporate space. I think its a fair compromise.
You raise a very good point about it being the WORLD wide web. That's the trick, you can only govern it so far if you want it to maintain as the worlds open communication portal, which I think we all want to see remain as open as possible. The exchange of ideas and values across cultures is so valuable, to govern it in a limiting way would be very destructive.
I think most world cultures would agree that protecting children should be a staple of any good reasonable society. Any society that endorses censorship to do so (China for example), is going to be disinterested on how the rest of the world comes together on a solution because ultimately they have applied thier own form of exclusion, which is a shame.
Thats an extreme example of what we would rather not become through government intervention. I like to be an optimist, I see it as an opportunity for members of the adult entertainment and gambling interests to come together with government representation to thwart censorship, and perhaps offer some compromise to show that they do share in the common interest to protect our children.
Perhaps if a few of the right people come forward, work together with the government to promote better filtering standards, perhaps the government would back off of the extreme solution, censorship.
Censorship is such a slipery slope, as Mr. Malone points out, once you start, where do you draw the line? Whats "unacceptable".
We obviously don't want that for any free society. Lets hope the two sides can establish a reasonable dialogue to improve each sides position without resorting to outright censorship.